*Official* Pakistan in England and Ireland 2016

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah I definitely disagree with it too, but it's not as if Cook didn't have any reasons to do what he did.

 

[artvandalay]

Blimey the whining at this is becoming an epidemic. It's not the right decision for me, but it really isn't the Earth-shatteringly awful thing that some are making it to be.

Id love if this match ended in a draw with England needing 2 wickets or something on day 5 so this can be revisited. Batting for 40 overs for maybe 200 runs when you can instead knock over a fragile top order and have Pakistan 3 down is a no brainer for me. The conditions were good for bowling throught day 3 anyway so it's not like anyone's knackered.

 

[Howe_zat]

Feeling the urge to bowl again with just under half the match remaining in order to bowl a side out strikes me as particularly panicky and unnecessary. Especially so if you consider their top order to be 'fragile'. You think it usually takes 7 sessions to bowl a side out in the second innings?

How negative.

 

[Howe_zat]

Presumably the whingers also get pissed off when a batsman doesn't retire out when on 200 odd? He has enough runs, should get on with the game, right?

Unless he needs to, he'll just carry on playing cricket as normal.

Extend the same thought to captaincy.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm fine with batting again as long as there isn't an unnecessarily early declaration to follow it, which I suspect there may be.

 

[Burgey]

Presumably the whingers also get pissed off when a batsman doesn't retire out when on 200 odd? He has enough runs, should get on with the game, right?

Unless he needs to, he'll just carry on playing cricket as normal.

Extend the same thought to captaincy.

I don't get the comparison tbh.

I really don't give a tinker's re the declaration. I wouldn't do it principally because of the weather, but the onfield skipper has a better idea of how his bowlers are doing and also whether the opposition are as cooked as they seem to be from a distance. If it rains for a session or two and they miss the win, he'll have to wear it but I suspect they'll win with a leg in the air anyway.

 

[Howe_zat]

I don't get the comparison tbh.

I really don't give a tinker's re the declaration. I wouldn't do it principally because of the weather, but the onfield skipper has a better idea of how his bowlers are doing and also whether the opposition are as cooked as they seem to be from a distance. If it rains for a session or two and they miss the win, he'll have to wear it but I suspect they'll win with a leg in the air anyway.

That's fine, it's the moaning that's winding me up, from professional circles as much as here. On the Guardian cricket page - usually quite a good source for cricket, other habits aside - their headline for the day's play is about not enforcing rather than the more pertinent news of Pakistan having been bowled out. There's then a bonus opinion piece on that decision, rather than anything that might have decided the game. I'm annoyed because England effectively won a test yesterday and the principle message from the media is moaning.

The moaning is mainly based off several assumptions, all of which are dubious or wrong, and that's the point I'm trying to make with the batting comparison. People don't feel an urgent need for individual batsmen to stop playing as normal as soon as they have a good score, but there is this harrumphing when a team carries on as normal as soon as they have a very good lead. It's just so unnecessary.

Ftr the weather is fine.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

The fact Scaly and Piers Moron are so upset about the follow on not being enforced means it was a great decision. Moron was ranting yesterday that KP still averages more than Cook and Cook was only batting as he wants more records. Comical really, I hope Cook gets a red inker here as he now averages more than KP.

Will be funny if we bat for 40 minutes and Cook is then on 80* and the other batsman tells him to get his ton then declare. Moron will go off the scale with moaning.

 

[Adders]

I'm fine with batting again as long as there isn't an unnecessarily early declaration to follow it, which I suspect there may be.

What would you class as an unnecessarily early declaration? Unless the batting conditions have changed a lot overnight I would think they'll bat out the first session and then declare sometime during the second, could be reasonably early in the session though.

 

[Adders]

I'm also happy so long as they are scoring at a good clip (which they are)........but seeing as the next 2 bats are basically playing for their careers I do fear a wicket could put a bit of a dampener on the scoring rate and I wouldn't really want to see us batting for a session going at 2.5 rpo in this situation.

 

[Howe_zat]

What would you class as an unnecessarily early declaration? Unless the batting conditions have changed a lot overnight I would think they'll bat out the first session and then declare sometime during the second, could be reasonably early in the session though.

That's probably the case. A session of batting typically would probably see them 580ish ahead which would leave plenty of runs even for 5 sessions of bowling. They may give it a few whacks to aim for the mental barrier of 600. It's not likely to matter much.

Can't speak for PEWS but I think he and I agree that an unnecessarily early declaration is one that doesn't actually give you more time to bowl the opposition out because they would chase the score before the end of the game (eg setting 450 in 5 sessions - if a side bats for 5 sessions they will have got the score anyway, so you haven't actually saved yourself time).

 

[Black_Warrior]

Dobell summed it up for me. Personally I felt 391 was enough but then again I don't see the Pakistan team scoring over 391 in the second innings..but I understand Cook's decision as well..he has to do everything possible to eliminate any possibility other than win.

Regarding the reactions, this is the age of social media, everyone has a twitter/FB account, Cricinfo wants everyone to comment on every ****** article. A short lived over reaction to every decision that deviates from what is usual or expected is inevitable.

The same thing happened when Misbah didn't enforce the follow on against Bangladesh last year.

 

[Prince EWS]

That's probably the case. A session of batting typically would probably see them 580ish ahead which would leave plenty of runs even for 5 sessions of bowling. They may give it a few whacks to aim for the mental barrier of 600. It's not likely to matter much.

Can't speak for PEWS but I think he and I agree that an unnecessarily early declaration is one that doesn't actually give you more time to bowl the opposition out because they would chase the score before the end of the game (eg setting 450 in 5 sessions - if a side bats for 5 sessions they will have got the score anyway, so you haven't actually saved yourself time).

Yeah, I can't put it better than that. Fully agree.

 

[Daemon]

Remember Delhi guys. 136 overs, or just a little under 5 sessions. They scored 150 iirc.

 

[Top_Cat]

One aspect where Cook is beyond criticism for mine is in the way he's batting at the moment. Doesn't enforce then comes out and scores at a run-a-ball without really lashing Pakistan, just upped his usual rate because the situation demands it. Probably more demoralising than if he'd come out playing reverse sweeps and lifts over 3rd man because it suggests he and by extension his team are in control. Leading from the front and absolutely what you want to see from the skipper.

 

[Howe_zat]

One aspect where Cook is beyond criticism for mine is in the way he's batting at the moment. Doesn't enforce then comes out and scores at a run-a-ball without really lashing Pakistan, just upped his usual rate because the situation demands it. Probably more demoralising than if he'd come out playing reverse sweeps and lifts over 3rd man because it suggests he and by extension his team are in control. Leading from the front and absolutely what you want to see from the skipper.

I didn't see the last session, but it sounds to me like he didn't need to go to sweeps and lifts because Pakistan failed what you'd think was their one job last night of not feeding his scoring areas.

Mohammad Amir to Cook, FOUR, offers up some width and Cook crashes it away with a square cut

Rahat Ali to Cook, FOUR, cut away in front of square as he takes advantage of some more width

Rahat Ali to Cook, FOUR, width, and Cook chinese-cuts that all the way past his off stump and through fine leg for four! That was going to be four regardless, because Cook never misses out on those

Rahat Ali to Cook, FOUR, short and clobbered, utterly middled through midwicket.

That got him as far as 24 and from there he was cruising

 

[GIMH]

Good to see a prevalence of common sense in this thread

 

[Tom Halsey]

And saying the result is irrelevant to the quality of the decision is somewhat foolish; captains are there to do what they think will get results. If we draw this match then this decision will rightly be looked at. If we win it, then job done. I am not for a minute saying actions should solely be judged on results, but in sports the ends justify the means.

I don't agree with Scaly but I also disagree with this. I disagree with Scaly for other reasons, I don't think it is fair to say that if England win Scaly is wrong.

It is absolutely possible as a captain to make a bad decision but win anyway, just like it is possible as a batsman to play a bad shot that goes for 4.

In the long run, yes, the ends justify the means. Looking to the result to analyse a one-off decision, though, is a bad idea.

 

[Compton]

Presumably the whingers also get pissed off when a batsman doesn't retire out when on 200 odd? He has enough runs, should get on with the game, right?

Unless he needs to, he'll just carry on playing cricket as normal.

Extend the same thought to captaincy.

That's not the same thing.

The argument there should be when a captain declares because there's enough runs. A batsman retiring out because he personally has enough runs would be like a bowler deciding to site it a session because he already has 5.

I disagree with Cook's decision, but some of the reactions to it have blown it totally out of proportion; largely because England will still almost certainly win this test match with a session or two to spare.

 

[Captain_Cook]

This scorecard from 10 years ago shows why Cook didn't follow on.

ENG 551/6d
SL 192
SL 537/9 (f/o)

Match Drawn